>>However, Seattle Police officials also admitted that about 90 percent of the video officers create probably needs no redaction at all. That’s because members of the public have no right to expect privacy in their interactions with police, unless they are juveniles or a witness or victim whose safety might be at risk if their identity is known.
Even assuming this hackathon(first-ever apparently) meant well, in the context of recent events and the main purpose of these cameras being introduced, this hackathon has horrible optics. Also, this quote implies a separation of "members of the public" and "police" which is a very big part of the problems we see today. The police are(or at least should be) considered part of the public(more specifically, the community they work in) and they themselves should not expect any privacy while on duty. This separation is a catalyst to apathy.
I think you're conflating the semantics of English with what was actually trying to be accomplished. This isn't about protecting the officer's privacy; it is established in Seattle, King County, and Washington that officers can be photographed and recorded while undertaking their official duties.
The opposite, however, is not true. Individuals--the set of humans who are not police officers undertaking duties--do have an expectation of privacy except when the law or common practice says otherwise. For example, I have no expectation of privacy when walking down a public street. I, unlike a police officer, do have an expectation of privacy when I am at work, except from my employer.
The Seattle Police Department has a bad reputation inside Seattle. (King County's Sheriff isn't too far behind, sadly.) As a voting resident of Seattle, I am thrilled both that the police department is working on it and that the City Council is holding them to reforms.
I disagree with that. I find it serious (as in, not sarcastic), reasonable (he acknowledge the good intentions and did present a one-side, extremist view-point), and made a unique, helpful point: that police ought not to view themselves as separate from the public they protect and serve.
Comments
>>However, Seattle Police officials also admitted that about 90 percent of the video officers create probably needs no redaction at all. That’s because members of the public have no right to expect privacy in their interactions with police, unless they are juveniles or a witness or victim whose safety might be at risk if their identity is known.
Even assuming this hackathon(first-ever apparently) meant well, in the context of recent events and the main purpose of these cameras being introduced, this hackathon has horrible optics. Also, this quote implies a separation of "members of the public" and "police" which is a very big part of the problems we see today. The police are(or at least should be) considered part of the public(more specifically, the community they work in) and they themselves should not expect any privacy while on duty. This separation is a catalyst to apathy.
I think you're conflating the semantics of English with what was actually trying to be accomplished. This isn't about protecting the officer's privacy; it is established in Seattle, King County, and Washington that officers can be photographed and recorded while undertaking their official duties.
The opposite, however, is not true. Individuals--the set of humans who are not police officers undertaking duties--do have an expectation of privacy except when the law or common practice says otherwise. For example, I have no expectation of privacy when walking down a public street. I, unlike a police officer, do have an expectation of privacy when I am at work, except from my employer.
The Seattle Police Department has a bad reputation inside Seattle. (King County's Sheriff isn't too far behind, sadly.) As a voting resident of Seattle, I am thrilled both that the police department is working on it and that the City Council is holding them to reforms.
^^ Anyone care to provide comment on why this is getting down voted?
Tone. Sarcasm. Structure of the argument.
I disagree with that. I find it serious (as in, not sarcastic), reasonable (he acknowledge the good intentions and did present a one-side, extremist view-point), and made a unique, helpful point: that police ought not to view themselves as separate from the public they protect and serve.